sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure.

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression.

However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!

Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do.

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe.

So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?

sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure.

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression.

However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!

Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do.

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe.

So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?

No. He committed the crime, why should the taxpayer pay out?

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure.

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression.

However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!

Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do.

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe.

So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?

No. He committed the crime, why should the taxpayer pay out?

Because (a) the court said that if he did, it cannot be adequately proven (b) the State deprived him of liberty unlawfully. Arguably that is the verdict that should have been reached in the Person B's trial in the first place in which case he would have lost nothing.

In the Bain case, he was specifically found 'Not Guilty' on all 5 murder charges. There really does not seem much room for claiming "Well I know he did it even though a jury did not agree with me, so he should not get anything". Otherwise in corollary one could theoretically detain former defendants found not guilty at a trial and lock them in your shed. When charged with kidnapping and/or unlawful imprisonment, a defence that "He did (the crime he was acquitted of) anyway, so he should be locked up" would be enough of a defence....

sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure.

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression.

However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!

Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do.

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe.

So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?

No. He committed the crime, why should the taxpayer pay out?

Because (a) the court said that if he did, it cannot be adequately proven (b) the State deprived him of liberty unlawfully. Arguably that is the verdict that should have been reached in the Person B's trial in the first place in which case he would have lost nothing.

In the Bain case, he was specifically found 'Not Guilty' on all 5 murder charges. There really does not seem much room for claiming "Well I know he did it even though a jury did not agree with me, so he should not get anything". Otherwise in corollary one could theoretically detain former defendants found not guilty at a trial and lock them in your shed. When charged with kidnapping and/or unlawful imprisonment, a defence that "He did (the crime he was acquitted of) anyway, so he should be locked up" would be enough of a defence....

Based on that logic, the first time around they found him guilty, so then why would he be due compensation?

The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defence or prosecution adequately

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately

Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail. There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted? They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty". That's just really naive.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately

Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail. There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted? They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty". That's just really naive.

In fact the verdict is "Not Guilty"

If we follow your logic it is equally reasonable to assume that being found "guilty" does not equal 'guilty'.

The law is a technical construct. "Getting off on a technicality" is hardly an oddity therefore. To use my law lecturer's example of many years ago: if the law is drafted by Parliament to state that murder is only murder when committed by a person wearing a blue hat, then if you kill someone whilst not wearing a blue hat you have NOT committed murder within the meaning of the law. The fact that you were not wearing a blue hat is a technicality but it is a crucial one.

To add to the remand point: if you are jailed on remand for 12 months, your business goes bust and your wife leaves you, then at trial you are found not guilty, are you then entitled to compensation for the harm that the State has done to your life?

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately

Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail. There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted? They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty". That's just really naive.

In fact the verdict is "Not Guilty"

If we follow your logic it is equally reasonable to assume that being found "guilty" does not equal 'guilty'.

The law is a technical construct. "Getting off on a technicality" is hardly an oddity therefore. To use my law lecturer's example of many years ago: if the law is drafted by Parliament to state that murder is only murder when committed by a person wearing a blue hat, then if you kill someone whilst not wearing a blue hat you have NOT committed murder within the meaning of the law. The fact that you were not wearing a blue hat is a technicality but it is a crucial one.

To add to the remand point: if you are jailed on remand for 12 months, your business goes bust and your wife leaves you, then at trial you are found not guilty, are you then entitled to compensation for the harm that the State has done to your life?

Definitely, provided you can prove to a reasonable standard that you are in all likelihood innocent of the allegation.

If you are "not guilty" just because a policeman said "and" instead of "or" when reading your rights, or because there was a typo on a charging document, and every other piece of evidence says you are guilty...absolutely not.

I hear where you are coming from, but I doubt the fact that the offender was not wearing a blue hat would be accepted by any normal society, let alone the victim, whether or not it is "right" in the eyes of the law. What's that saying?...sometimes 'the law is an ass'. This is the exact sort of argument that keep lawyers in the manner in which they have become accustomed.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defence or prosecution adequately

Personally, if I spent a year in remand because I looked too much like someone who did someone naughty, even if I was released after the trial with a pat on the head form the judge and a certificate saying not guilty, my life would be severely stuffed up. My employer is unlikely to hold my job open indefinitely, my bank will surely want my mortgage paid, my wife and kids will be suffering, not to mention the slur on my name that would result. All of this would not be compensated for.

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately

Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail. There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted? They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty". That's just really naive.

In fact the verdict is "Not Guilty"

If we follow your logic it is equally reasonable to assume that being found "guilty" does not equal 'guilty'.

The law is a technical construct. "Getting off on a technicality" is hardly an oddity therefore. To use my law lecturer's example of many years ago: if the law is drafted by Parliament to state that murder is only murder when committed by a person wearing a blue hat, then if you kill someone whilst not wearing a blue hat you have NOT committed murder within the meaning of the law. The fact that you were not wearing a blue hat is a technicality but it is a crucial one.

To add to the remand point: if you are jailed on remand for 12 months, your business goes bust and your wife leaves you, then at trial you are found not guilty, are you then entitled to compensation for the harm that the State has done to your life?

Some people might consider their wives leaving them as compensation enough :-)

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up. I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial). The delays in the system are too long. A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defence or prosecution adequately

Personally, if I spent a year in remand because I looked too much like someone who did someone naughty, even if I was released after the trial with a pat on the head form the judge and a certificate saying not guilty, my life would be severely stuffed up. My employer is unlikely to hold my job open indefinitely, my bank will surely want my mortgage paid, my wife and kids will be suffering, not to mention the slur on my name that would result. All of this would not be compensated for.

Justice delayed, is justice denied.

Are you being serious? The chances of being remanded for a crime, based SOLEY on the fact you look like someone else who committed a crime serious enough to warrant remand in the first place are so low, it doesn't really warrant wasting bandwidth to discuss it.

In a court of law there is GUILTY and NOT GUILTY. If a person is found not guilty by way of an aquittal, then they are legally not guilty and should be entitled to compensation.

There should be no place for the minister or anyone to decide "they shouldn't get compensation because they are probably guilty" - a court of law has already determined that the are not guilty and have been wrongfully imprisoned.

I personally think fair compensation would be their earning potential for they time they were in prison plus at least $50,000 per year wrongly served.